I figure Robert was bullied by the Black students, just as the teacher in Louisiana probably was. I don’t think being lazy would be enough reason to develop hatred toward a group.

I was bullied a few times, but I am a hard person to bully because I am so psycho. I fight back way too much, so people just don’t bully me very much.

The commenter is correct that I could care less that the kids refused to work. That never bothered me al that much.

I stated to dislike them because way too many of them acted like shit, that’s why.

I would like to point out one more thing about this endless antiracist dodge the commenter is engaging in here. He keeps reiterating that people don’t like Blacks because they had negative experiences with them or were bullied by them. Ok fine, but why doesn’t this apply to other ethnic groups as well? And furthermore, why do so many perfectly nice non-Blacks seem to mysteriously have so many bad experiences with Black people.

Have you noticed that a Hell of a lot of people who have a lot of exposure to Blacks end up not liking them a whole lot?! What does that say about Black people? That humans in general are raciss?

The situation with Blacks is like the guy who keeps getting thrown out of every bar in town and then complains it’s all down to some weird mysterious prejudice. “They got it in for me!” It’s not anything he did in the bars. Oh no! It’s just some weird, mysterious hatred for no reason bullshit. Most people would say the problem is you, not the bars you got thrown out of.

That’s the situation for Blacks – blaming the people who aren’t real keen on Blacks for their opinions and then blaming them again for all of Blacks’ subsequent behavior is like blaming all the bars in town for throwing the guy out over and over. And now he’s acting awful, and it’s all because of the mean, evil, scum bar owners who picked on him for no damn reason! Oh boo hoo! Bad, mean bar owners! Bad people! They’re so mean! Boo! Hiss!

I suspect it has to do with Robert’s Anthropologist-ish background, it seems like you guys have a deep respect for basically any people capable of civilization at all/ have a deeper appreciation for it.

Correct, I have worked as a Cultural Anthropologist. I sort of fake my way into most of my jobs – I get a bunch of books on how to do it read them or I call up people who work in the field and ask them how to do the job. Then just go be an impostor. I remember when I boned up for the job, the books I read said that if you were going to be an anthropologist and work with an ethnic group, one thing you had to do was to accept the ethnic group in toto, and that meant you had to accept every single one of their behaviors and cultural practices. That’s the only way to do ethnographic work.

If you dislike some of the group’s beliefs, behaviors or practices, it can show up in your work with your informants, and if you don’t have a good relationship with your informants, you can’t get any good anthropological work done at all. Your informants will lie, play tricks on you, make up jokes about what they believe and do and all sorts of nonsense. Or they will just become hostile and refuse to cooperate much at all.

It’s sort an unconditional positive regard thing, a Rogersian way of doing anthropology.

Speaking of which, I also work in mental health, and I believe in Rogers’ Unconditional Positive Regard model here too. Too many therapists don’t, and I believe as a result, they do lousy therapy. I accept all of my clients in toto and generally don’t have any negative attitudes about any of them. Of course it helps that most of my clients are very good people. I don’t have to work with lousy or bad people as clients. I guess it’s difficult.

Also I am still a liberal at heart. That never left me. If your heart is still on the Left, it’s hard to get all that racist no matter how awful X group or race acts. Though Gypsies would definitely try my patience!

As a guest author, I’ve figured for a while that I would either plan or be forced for my sanity to write an article focusing my “politics”, having more faith in the latter.

The lack of clarity regarding them has, to my disadvantage, sparked claims or suspicions of me being a White Supremacist in disguised or bordering such ideology despite being Black. Though when repeatedly queried, said accusers couldn’t cite a legit case of me showing clear, non-statistical or subjective bias against Blacks (consistent with my actual politics to be mentioned further on).

At the same time, regulars in the comment section such as William or Tulio have expressed curiosity in whatever “path” has drawn me to my current thoughts. These questions caused me to drift back towards my own agenda in HBD towards a recurring dilemma dating since my initial exposure to modern research of racial differences. Both challenged and conflicted, I’ve decided to devote time and energy into a subject matter that I’ve found, honestly, was not even that clear to me prior to typing this.

Why I’m not a online “Stormer”

1. I have a deep intolerance towards self-hate. Being blunt with shortcomings of your background and reflecting it in your character is one thing, but complaining about it to the point where you reject your own and try to emulate another group is rather pathetic and treacherous to me regardless of one’s race or culture . With that said, it became apparent to me that many people have had experiences where they witness these shortcomings up front with a profound effect that forces them out of it, ones I’ve never had. Regardless, I’m not ignorant of “Negro vices,” and I’ll address that afterwards.

2. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t commit to a “new White identity”. This is largely due to me having physical traits that obviously wouldn’t pass the “Ubermensch” test, which is to be expected when I’m about 82-84% Black. My only features that deviate me from the typical “Negro” look would be my skin tone, head size, and some isolated facial features, and even then, they could still be within a typical range in certain subgroups. Second would be mental and personality traits.

3. Though we could argue the extent of the stereotypes in their general application to Blacks, I’m simply going to point out the ones that apply to me. One would be laziness, which had actually cost me a semester of Advanced Calculus, but I’ve fortunately managed to make it up. Another match would be my emotion. Often I find myself invested in sadness, excitement, anger, and ponderousness for little or no reason. The third would be how simplified I try to make my daily activities, often in favor of my own leisure. There may be more, but I these traits pretty much match with what one would read from such titles such as Among the Ibos by G. T. Basden. Even then, I don’t actually hate myself as much as I discourage these tendencies in me.

4. As far as mental differences goes, what separates me from other Blacks is my lack of a gregarious nature, being more inclined to individualism. While it often results in me having more White friends, it doesn’t actually correlate with me having a deep desire to be White.

5. I hate Black-bashing with a passion. Criticism, sure, but modern Internet-Nazi mantra makes my blood boil more than reading Europeans in the past actually comparing Blacks to apes. That reason is because, as blunt as they were, the early Europeans could articulate that intelligently and others even tried to give better context to it, one I remember rejecting it in favor of “Paleolithic Man”. Needless to say, the type of Black- bashers that anger me are little like these early explorers.

Why I Bother with HBD

As said before, I have an agenda like most who acknowledge race realism. Before even researching the specifics, I thought that I could use my knowledge and experiences of personal vices that hold people back, making me an efficient adviser and communicator towards individuals that could use my help. Particularly, ones like my cousin Zachary who failed high school, has no job, and has a record for burglary.

At face value, I have no good reason to help him. While I barely know him and once when he visited me, he treated me like crap, my mother who cared about him when he was younger has already accepted his current fate, and currently his father has had enough and kicked him out after years of caring (and admittedly spoiling) him. The real reason I want to help him can be found when you look deeper into the situation.

When he respected my mother when he was younger, she was likely placeholder for his mother who barely acknowledged. Being both updated in his habits and having experience in knowing “real” thugs, she asserts that Zachary wasn’t one. She explains how a thug at his luck would be selling dope or on the streets or whatever crime to get by, but Zachary isn’t hardened like them and he only hangs out with them for “face”. He hadn’t done much else since the one burglary, leading me to suspect he did it out of peer pressure.

Instead he has been borrowing money and making empty promises of either school or work, really never sticking to anything. More evidence for his non-thug nature is that he actually does want to invest in his son, but currently the mother and her family are trying to find a “sugar daddy” to support the mother.

As far as I see it, my cousin is in a position where the Left isn’t actually going to the tackle his issues, and the Right wouldn’t even bother. It makes me stop and wonder how many are like him. With that said, I’m not stupid. While lacking in real life experience, reports from others now and in the past have given me a clear idea of dangers in engaging this too lightly. Unlike the active Left, I don’t generalize the situation of unfortunate Blacks from my cousin’s plight. I use HBD to understand my limitations and reassess my goals.

Am I Smart Because I’m Part White?

While I find my partly White background it a likely contributor, I would like to point out regardless that I’m more of the “sloppy Black genius” Robert has written about in the past. To roughly understand my psychology, I’ll refer to my personality type and trends in behavior of different Black tribes that would be likely candidates.

INFP’s tend to improvise more than plan, like blacks when “nigger-rigging” as Robert once elaborated. INFP’s are also have bias towards feelings and are led by virtues. While blacks have been noted to be somewhat endowed in observing emotions, how to actually consider them and respond with intuition was noted to be a separate skill. I’m unsure if this would be due to IQ or personality, likely both because I believe this would be a common vice in extroversion. Still, I wouldn’t pass off a Black component, which could be likely in my case.

Certain Blacks, like the Krumen or the Eboe, were noted for a more gentle nature than other Blacks during slavery, Eboes in particular being prone to suicide (an extreme extroverted trait). The latter were wanted for tobacco plantations, and as luck would find it, my mother’s side (where I owe my introversion) were tobacco sharecroppers, and my admixture results have me as 30% Nigerian, the largest single ethnicity out of all my ancestry results. On top of that, I’m rather sure both tribes had a form of a “mediator” as well as being noted for their fidelity, basically fitting a INFP caricature.

My father’s side is where I get my analytical skills. While my father is light skinned with a flatter face and more pointed nose than me, those are the only remotely White things about him. His cranial and body shape and other facial features are “Negro”. I suppose he would either fit the Congolese Bantu or Senegambian background. I would say likely Senegambian due to foresight, traditionalism and organization which overlap with some Bantus.

He’s not really that sensitive, which actually is a rather common thing in Black tribes aside from Eboes sand Krumen. This spawns from a combination of extroversion and logic such that he is not much of a feeler. He somewhat reminds me of a pastoralist in facial appearance and character, like a Tuareg or Fulani. I would say that he emulates some White Southerner traits right off the bat though, but I’m unsure if that’s through admixture or selection for certain traits when adapting to Southern society. Maybe a paternal lineage, like the pastoralists that were already mentioned.

So in summary, my White ancestry would play as a boost to latent traits which likely may come from certain Black backgrounds since I’m 82% Black. Another mechanism may be outbreeding, which increases individualism, if not “Whiteness” itself. If I knew my father’s specific components, I may have a better picture. As well I would encourage any info from Jm8 on behaviors of African tribes.

What socialists are not “elitist”? Aside from the “revolutionary masses”, all those who fancy leading/instructing them are and must be “elitists”.

It’s people who need a mission, something that will make them heroes, and are too intelligent to find that kind of gratification doing jobs even for 120 IQ people.

Of course this is true. It’s always been true. It’s surely true with Leninists and Communists. It always bothered me that Communist Party membership was limited to say, 6% of society. Every time I saw that, I felt pained. Why only 6%? How can you ever limit party membership to such a low number without that 6% becoming an elite in fact if not in essence? Assuming a person is sufficiently revolutionary, why can’t they join the party? And if they start lagging or going reactionary, just pull their membership. No problem there. Communists aren’t exactly democrats anyway.

Are the masses really that stupid and unaware of their own needs that only the top 6% of society is capable of addressing those needs, as 94% of them are class cucks who will always oppose their own interests?

If you read early Marxists, they were quite clear that the masses didn’t know what the Hell they were doing, had no idea of what their needs or even wants were, and were very easily swayed to support their class enemies on the basis of nationalism, jingoism, tribalism, racism, sexism, values conservatism, or religion.

They had no idea what they were doing and were incapable of figuring out what was best for them, so a paternalistic yet benevolent socialist elite (vanguard) was needed to show them the way. Granted, that may be the case, but it always seemed insulting towards the masses.

And even after years or decades of Communism, the masses are still as retarded as ever? After all those revolutionary classes and sessions, and they haven’t transformed in the slightest? That seemed so dubious to me.

The Chavistas, Sandinistas and others were trying to get away from that. I believe anyone can join the Sandinista Party, and members were often poor urban workers or peasants. The FMLN party in El Salvador is the same. Both of those parties managed to sell their project very well to the masses. Of course they were helped by decades of ruling class brutality and dictatorship that showed even the most blind of the masses that the ruling classes could never possibly be their friends in any formation or guise.

The Chavistas in Venezuela are much the same. In fact, the party itself is a grassroots party such that the grassroots nearly control the party direction, and those at the top are nearly beholden to those at the bottom, a complete transformation of typical human political relations, or probably of typical human relations in just about anything for that matter.

Direct Democracy is supposed to be the fairest type of grassroots democracy. Yet I feel that absent extensive education of the masses, Direct Democracy is often a polished turd.

The US initiative process is a good example of Direct Democracy perverted. The initiative process in the US is Direct Democracy, but the results are as often pro-ruling class as against, which is not how you would expect the masses to vote. One problem is that the initiative process was hijacked in recent years by large corporations and the rich.

The initiative process was initiated in the early 1900’s as a way of fighting such malign institutions as Standard Oil and the Southern Pacific Railroad. These corporations had such a deadly grip on the US political process and media that they nearly ruled the country. Nothing could be done about them. The only way to challenge this Dictatorship of the Monopoly Corporations was via direct vote by the citizenry. The initiative process hence was began as a progressive process of taking issues directly to the people to challenge corporate and ruling class power when the other branches of government were too controlled by Class Power to limit it in any way. The initiative process was a reform process.

Perversely, this progressive reform via Direct Democracy was by the end of the century largely taken over by the ruling class and especially the large corporations, the very things that the process was put in to fight against.

Gay State Girl: Susan Wojicicki has a Polish Catholic father and a Jewish mother. Her sister Ann Wojicicki (Mrs Google) is married to Sergei Brin and runs the Biotech firm 23andme, promising to analyze people’s genetic profile for a low cost but does not say how she intends to use their profiles in the future.

William: A European half-Jew marrying a gentile (Italian?) is not exactly quintessentially Jewish…at least in the sense of someone like Ben Shapiro (the gold standard)

First of all, it’s the Goldberg Standard, dammit, not the Gold Standard. Jews 101.

Both Susan Wojicicki and Ann Wojicicki (Mrs Google) are Jews.

If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew. I mean come on, that’s Jews 101 again. Did the commenter flunk?

Gay State Girl: is married to Sergei Brin

Mr. Brin is a member of the Russian Mafia, I mean he is a Russian Jew, excuse me.

RL: Granted these were tough concepts, and the concretist way of thinking seemed intuitively correct for most of these concepts, but of course it was wrong. The concretist view was usually something like, “What a stupid idea! This means nothing at all! Dumbest idea I’ve ever heard! It makes no sense! Completely irrational!” You had to stretch your brain quite a bit to figure out why the abstract view of the situation was actually the correct one and that the idea indeed had some merit.

Oops I did it again: I wonder how the thing people are best at is describing their selves in picturing what they believe be others.

This is so true! There are quite a few notions out there where the common sense view is, “Hey look, well, looking at this situation, obviously the truth is X = Y.” Or something along those lines.

“Well of course!…Obviously!…It must be…That’s simple…”.

The problem is that in these cases the logical, common sense POV is just…guess what? Wrong. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

What’s the truth? The truth is actually found by looking at the question from an abstract and non-concretist and hopefully as objective view as possible. When we do that, we find that the truth is actually something completely counterintuitive.

Too many people think in a concretist way. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as the concretist view is correct, and often it is. Where we run into problems is where the concretist view is just wrong and the only path to the correct answer is via the abstract view.

When one resigns oneself to concretist thinking all the time, you have stated that you are defeated by adulthood and that you will be an 11 year old forever. That is because 11 years old is the end of concrete relations. If you wonder why 12 year old girls seem so different from 11 year old girls (and I have noticed how brilliant these little 12 year old’s are), it is because the 12 year old girl is now taking her baby steps into the world of abstraction.

Abstraction versus concreteness are two very different ways of thinking, of looking at the world. The reason that abstraction begins at age 12 is because this is an adult mode of thinking. Concretion, while often charming and humorous, is a child’s way of looking at the world. Perhaps children benefit from concreteness, or more likely, perhaps it simply takes that slow-maturing brain of ours 12 full years to mature to the state of Abstractness.

My father had a 129 IQ, but he was surprisingly concrete for such a smart guy in the top 4% of the intelligence bracket. There were certain things that I tried to explain to him over and over like Zen philosophy or proportional voting.

Proportional voting is a bit tricky to get around (you vote for 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices which are counted differently depending on outcomes), but my Mom and brother were able to get it after a bit. My father could never get it.

He could never get the controversy over software patents either. A software patent is intellectual property – it’s like patenting an idea. A novelist writes a few paragraphs about this or that. Sure, the exact word structure is copywritten, though it can be copied easily by shifting some words around. But the novelist cannot copyright the idea that he came up with that is expressed in that section. Sartre could not patent Existentialism. A software patent is like that novelist patenting those three paragraphs he wrote. How can you do that? You can’t.

How about patenting the idea of making a window pop up on your screen? How can you do that? That’s like patenting the idea of Postmodernism. You can’t patent software. That’s patenting ideas. My father thought I was arguing against patents or copyrights. He never could get the argument.

Zen was hopeless. All he did was pound the table over and over again. “What’s the point?! What the point of Zen Buddhism?!” Well obviously if you take that idea to any Zen monk, assuming he answers the question at all and doesn’t answer by saying, “Go sweep your floor now,” or something like that, an honest Zen master will simply say that the point of Zen is that there is no point. That’s Zen in a nutshell. There’s nothing there at all, and that is the whole point, if there is even a point at all, which is pretty up in the air itself.

RL: Incidentally, two of the brightest commenters on my blog had IQ’s of 113 and 117. The 117 IQ guy was fantastic at philosophy and other forms of abstract thinking. The other fellow was into genetics and anthropology, but he thought in much the same way. A few of these types are so bright that you almost think that their score is wrong. I am not sure what is going on except maybe they are working their brains extra hard, or they have filled their brains up with all sorts of goodies.

Oops I did it again: Myers-Briggs (Jungian) type, life experiences, economic status, degree of neuroticism (“Work their wits hard”), the brain faculty we call “sensitivity”, the other we call “fantasy”, all are factors.

This is so correct. Jim Flynn wrote a book the premise of which was something like “factors above and beyond IQ.” He showed how 1st and 2nd Generation Northeast Asians in the US (mostly Japanese and Chinese) were often working at jobs up that usually required IQ’s 20 points above their level. In other words, a 100 IQ Japanese-American would be functioning on the job at the same level as a typical 120 IQ ordinary American. In other words, the NE Asians might have an IQ of 100, but on his on the job performance was the same as someone with a 120 IQ.

Flynn called these “extra-IQ factors.” In other words, on the job, IQ isn’t everything. I forget what the extra-IQ factors were but they seemed to be things like punctuality, responsibility, resilience, psychological stability, regular attendance, studiousness, reliability, seriousness, conscientiousness, hard working nature, and stick-to-it-iveness or what some are now calling “grit” which boils down to “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” or continuing to hammer away at a problem even after repeated failure – not giving up.

So you see there are personality factors that you can add to your IQ score so you perform at a higher level than your IQ would predict.

I was thinking of this in terms of Blacks, that maybe Blacks could cultivate some extra-IQ factors that would allow them to overcome some of their disadvantage due to lower average IQ. If an 85 IQ Black person could function on the job at the same level as we expect a 105 IQ person to perform at, I think the position of Blacks in the US could improve a lot. Unfortunately the wort of things that were helping the NE Asians were sort of “nerd factors, square factors, uptight factors” that Blacks just don’t seem to do well in, mostly because they look down on this sort of excessive seriousness.

Nevertheless, I am open to the idea of harnessing extra-IQ factors in Blacks to help them to perform better in school and work. Harnessing what seems to be their innate social skills and extroversion might be one of these things.

Degree of neuroticism or working their wits hard: Correct. Someone who pushes their brain into overdrive and characteristically pushes their mind and intellect to its limits in an almost challenge-testing near-athletic competitive manner could surely perform above their IQ level. I think I have seen some examples of this in my life.

Sensitivity as a brain factor: I could see how this would help you perform above your IQ level, but I am wondering just what this factor is.

Fantasy as a brain factor: If this means something like creativeness or open mindedness or the tendency to think outside the box, I could see how this would help you.

RL: A 115 IQ is absolutely enough to graduate from college, and most of them do. Is it enough to get an advanced degree? I would say that it is enough to get a Master’s Degree, but at that range, getting a PhD might be a challenge, and at the very least, they would have to work very hard for it.

Oops I did it again: Are we talking of Black-Studies and Social Work Ph.D.’s? :)) Jokes aside…A mindful person wants a Ph.D if they can be real researchers.

My IQ is 115-125 (different scores at different times, but on average: 110 spatial, 125 numerical/logic, 130/135 verbal), I could have achieved a Ph.D., but I would have felt it was “fake” or just a title to boast.

This commenter is absolutely brilliant and is one of the better commenters we have had here in a while. With a 120 IQ, he readily quotes Heidigger and Schopenhauer (!) and generally seems to “get it” more than many of my other commenters – for instance, he was the only one who seemed to figure out the post on Heidigger and surface and deep meanings of objects.

A 120 IQ gets put down too much on this site. We have some commenters in that range lamenting that their IQ’s are not very high. Come off it. Keep in mind that if you have a 120 IQ, you are in the top 10% of the IQ range. Ten people in a room? You are smarter than everyone in the room, all nine of them. I do not know about the rest of you, but I would love to be in the top 10% of just about any positive category.

But I think what we are really looking at here in this commenter is the 132 verbal IQ. That is truly kick-ass. He is in the Gifted range of Verbal IQ or the top 2% of the population. Based on verbal IQ only, he is smart enough to get into Mensa.

So the reason this 120 IQ fellow seems to be so brilliant is not so much that there is something special about his 120 IQ or that he has all sorts of extra-IQ factors going, but instead it is all wrapped up in that 132 verbal IQ that is part of the 120 score.

It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to look at whole IQ scores. It’s probably more reasonable to look at the specific IQ breakdowns on the subtests to get the true whole picture of the individual’s intelligence.